© 2008 Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik Industrial policy for low carbon development LAC-EU Economic Forum 2013 Santiago de Chile, 21 January

© 2008 Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik

Industrial policy for low carbon development

LAC-EU Economic Forum 2013

Santiago de Chile, 21 January 2013

Tilman Altenburg, DIE


2

Industrial policy debate converging towards “pragmatic heterodox strategies”

Focus no longer whether IP is needed, but how it should be implemented

Growing consensus on:

developing “latent” comparative advantages (Lin);

subsidising search costs (Rodrik);

Remaining dissent on

big push policies to overcome major coordination failures.

Industrial policy debate in a nutshell


3

Why low carbon industrial policy is systematically different and particularly challenging


4

LCIP require stronger government intervention than “BAU industrial policy” => larger risks => additional demands on governance ... due to:

a. Mixed objectives: economic and environmental

b. Unprecedented scale and urgency of low carbon transformation

c. Additional and more severe market failure

Extra challenges of Low Carbon Industrial Policy


5

LCIP pursues growth /employment AND environmental objectives

… may involve difficult trade-offs as well as win-win opportunities:

(a) Mixed objectives


6

Policy trade-offs:

1. Stricter environmental regulations may reduce competitiveness … but they may also induce innovations that more than compensate for compliance costs (Porter);Mixed evidence: ++ wind turbines/Denmark, ++ flexfuel motors/Brazil: -- solar photovoltaics/Germany

Tough decisions whether to opt for early mover advantages or let others bear the costs of early experimentation

2. Local Content Requirements: useful to build local capabilities, but increase costs and reduce investment incentives



7

.. and win-wins, even in emerging economies:

1. Growing markets: e.g. renewable energy/storage/energy efficiency market 2010: 313 bn €, 2025: 1060 bn.

2. Huge renewable energy potentials in the “South”

3. Successful catching up in the South, e.g. Chinese solar and wind, Indian wind industry, Brazilian biofuels



8

Urgency to act !!! To avoid > 2° C global warming, industrialised countries need to reduce emissions by 80-95% in 2050 relative to 1990. Cost of current rate of global warming in 2050: 14% GDP (OECD 2012)

=> The first major industrial transformation that has a deadline !!

Current decoupling of growth from resource consumption far too slow, “rebound effects“ !

(b) Unprecedented scale and urgency


10.3%

15.0%13.8%

16.3%

25.9% 26.2%

34.2%

43.7%

3.6%4.6% 5.3%

7.9%

17.3%18.3%

23.9%

30.7%

4.3%4.6%

5.0%5.4% 6.1% 6.9%

7.9%9.2%

3.5% 3.5% 3.6% 3.8% 4.0% 4.5% 5.1%6.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Renewable power capacity change as a % of global power capacity change (net)

Renewable power generation change as a % of global power generation change (net)

Renewable power as a % of global power capacity

Renewable power as a % of global power generation

10.3%

15.0%13.8%

16.3%

25.9% 26.2%

34.2%

43.7%

3.6%4.6% 5.3%

7.9%

17.3%18.3%

23.9%

30.7%

4.3%4.6%

5.0%5.4% 6.1% 6.9%

7.9%9.2%

3.5% 3.5% 3.6% 3.8% 4.0% 4.5% 5.1% 6.0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Renewable power capacity change as a % of global power capacity change (net)Renewable power generation change as a % of global power generation change (net)

Renewable power as a % of global power capacityRenewable power as a % of global power generation

Note: Renewable power excludes large hydro. Renewable capacity figures based on Bloomberg New Energy Finance global totals.

Source: Moslener, based on UNEP, BNEF, FS (2012)

Time lags: Rapid expansion of renewables investments – little change of global power mix



10

LCIP needs to change entire economic subsystems (energy, transport, land use …)

…. and to accelerate transformation:

– Adopt measures to phase out less sustainable incumbent technologies

– Subsidize deployment of green alternatives:

Deployment an end in itself !!



Actual electricity costs in Germany, renewables vs. fossil electricity

Photovoltaics small 1100*Photovoltaics free 1300*Wind onshore 2000**Wind offshore 3200**Power mix (fossil, nuclear) (BMU, 2012)

**kwh / m2 / per module

* full load hours / a

Source: FH ISE (2012) p. 18

Actu

alel

ectr

icity

cost

s(€

/ kw

h)



Differential costs of renewable energy development for electric energy

Diff

ere

nti

al co

sts

(bn €

(2

009)

/ a)

Scenario A: substantial in-crease of fossil energy costs

Scenario B: moderate

Scenario C: very low

External costs internalized

As-is state

Source: DLR/IWES/IFNE (2011). The differential costs are based upon Scenario A



13

Need to mobilise upfront investments: 200-210 bn US$ until 2030 to reduce global carbon emissions 25% below 2000 level (UNFCCC 2008);

Political capture may increase the cost substantially; several examples of distorted incentive schemes (European Emissions Trading, biofuel subsidies …) (Helm 2011)

Germany loses 7 bn € /a for unnecessary exemptions from ETS that are not needed to protect industry against international competition;

Importance of smart policy designs, periodic policy revisions, political checks and balances



14

Change must be radical, systemic and fast ... Against vested interests and lock-in effects:

... But today’s markets do not provide the right incentives:

– Environmental externalities

– Coordination failure

– Information failure

– Capital market failure

(c) Additional market failures


15

What can be done to accelerate low carbon technological change?


16

LCIP is essential. Postponing action boost costs for future generations

Internalize environmental costs: carbon price, water prices

Reduce number of exemptions

Phase out harmful subsidies (2010: 409 bn $ fossil energy subsidies. (IEA 2011)

Technology push policies (R&D, deployment subsidies, standards)

Ensure policy coherence (e.g. preferential FIT may reduce prices of emissions certificate = disincentive)

Low carbon industrial policy implications


17

Mobilise finance: creation of policy rents and predictable long-term policy frameworks (guaranteed tariffs, soft loans, investment guarantees ...).

=> High demands on governments. Need to improve policy learning, minimize political capture



18

Good examples exist, including developing countries. E.g. India’s solar mission:

1. Mobilised investments: installed cap from 18 MW (2010) to 1000 MW (2012).

2. reverse bidding brought prices down from 24 to 11 cents/kWh within one year,

3. Target for retail grid parity revised down from 2022 to 2017

LCIP is necessary – and possible !



19

Thank you for your attention !

Documents

© 2008 Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik Industrial policy for low carbon development LAC-EU Economic Forum 2013 Santiago de Chile, 21 January